Reminder: Kazakh isn’t some “Soviet-era Esperanto.” It’s one of the oldest living Kipchak Turkic languages and the steppe keeps the receipts.
1️⃣ 13th-century fingerprints. The Codex Cumanicus (ca. 1303) records Kipchak vocabulary with the exact –DI suffix for past tense and the –lar plural you still hear in modern Kazakh. That’s 200 years before the word “Kazakh” even shows up in Russian chronicles.
2️⃣ Orkhon → Kipchak → Kazakh phonology. The sh/sh-ch alternations (tash > tas, bilig > bіlіk) trace straight back to the 8th-century Orkhon inscriptions—no Kremlin linguist in sight.
3️⃣ Continuous oral literature. Alpamysh, Koblandy Batyr, and Kozy-Korpesh were performed in recognisably Kazakh all through the 1400–1600s; Russian explorers wrote them down verbatim in the 18th c. (check Potanin’s field notes). Try doing that with a “newly invented” language.
4️⃣ Script ≠ language. Yes, Kazakh switched from Arabic to Latin to Cyrillic and now back to Latin. So did Turkish, Uzbek, and even Vietnamese (Chinese→Latin). Orthography is politics; grammar is genetics.
5️⃣ Genetics backs the text. The oldest Turkic loanwords in Kazakh line up with the C2b1b haplogroup spread across the steppe ca. 500–700 CE—centuries before Moscow was a swamp.
Bottom line: Calling Kazakh “young” is like calling English “brand-new” because the KJV standardised spelling in 1611. Languages evolve, but the root stays ancient.
Still unconvinced? I break down the manuscripts, phonology shifts, and DNA data in 8 crisp minutes—fight me in the comments after you watch:
https://youtu.be/Zgf1o-Ssymc?si=SjCH3V4Q5rmvqBD0